Response to a quote

"The point is, that every piece of art changes your whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of your life. 

And it's not a joke! And if it doesn't, then it's not art, it's a commodity."

            I largely disagree with this quote and the language utilized therein, for in spite of the conditional fact that a piece of art may “change the whole perception of the rest of the world for the rest of the life” of a person, this doesn’t necessarily happen to every single person who views that particular piece.  Not only does this presumptuous statement assume that there is a constant definition for “art” within a society and that the perceptions of every being are exactly the same; it asserts that “commodity” and “art” reside in two separate spheres of existence. Speaking from my own perceptions and experiences, I have never witnessed a piece of art that has “changed my whole perception of the world” (although that is another highly subjective statement) – would this entail that “art” has yet to be created? I would like to see what the author considers to be a piece of art and, by extension, their definition of art itself.

            Just the other day, I looked at the Mona Lisa – a piece that is commonly accepted throughout our society as a work of art. I cannot say that my perception of the rest of the world was altered in the slightest; in fact, I’m not entirely sure what that would entail. Would that even be possible? Could the human psyche survive constant perceptive alteration when viewing a series of artworks? Is true art really that selective? …anyhow, because my “perception of the world” (although this largely lacks a specific definition) wasn’t altered (according to my own judgment), have I proven, based on this absurd logic, that the Mona Lisa is not art?

            In order to support this quote or bring it into any realm of understanding, there must be a working definition of what art is, which I also find to be a difficult – if not impossible – item to define. Personally, I define art by both the perception of the individual and the perception of the surrounding society; what they perceive to be art (based on my own perceptions; as much as a philosophical cop-out as that may be). From this viewpoint I also disagree with this quote, which suggests such qualifiers as “your perception of the world must be altered after viewing” if something is to be considered to be art. Because the perception of art is so thoroughly based on the individual – the emotional and aesthetic appealing to their own tastes based on their own interests and, by extrapolation, life experiences – I find it all the more obtuse for a person to assert such a boisterous position on the matter.  Is the classification of a work as a piece of art dependent on the individual’s personal preferences and sense of aesthetic, or on those of the society by which they are influenced, or both?

            Another opinionative presumption made by the quote is that if something is not classified as art, it must immediately be categorized as “commodity”: a statement whose language creates the illusion of saying a lot without actually having said anything meaningful. What is the definition of “commodity”, why is it assuming the role of being opposite to art (as expressed in the context of the statement), and why is it being portrayed negatively?! Is this person assuming that “art” and “uncommon” are synonymous? In terms of commodity and art, what of Jackson Pollock: his “Brillo Box” sculpture was indistinguishable from the form of an actual cardboard Brillo box. Essentially, a common item became art which society has accepted on the whole (although undoubtedly a certain level of their conviction that Pollock’s work was art stemmed from the relatively well-grounded acceptance that he was an artist); this butts heads with the author’s conviction that commodity cannot be art. Furthermore, within the art-producing community of any time period, the work of these artists will be stylistically and thematically similar to one another due to the standards and acceptances dictated by the surrounding society (“supply-and-demand” to offer a highly generalized explanation). Is this to say that if an artist’s work should be that which the society accepts, and therefore that which has become “the norm”, it becomes a commodity, and therefore cannot be art? Even if that explanation were to work in earlier generations where standards were more discriminatory, in this modern society it is generally accepted that most anything could be accepted as art (again, Pollock’s box sculpture). If anything could be art and if everything is common, does art even exist anymore (based on the author’s statement)?